Colonies Become Sovereign Nations

Prior to the Declaration of Independence there was no general government among the colonies connecting one colony to any other save the relationship each had to the British crown. Each colony was established according to the terms of its own charter and its officials answered directly to the British government accordingly.  The Declaration of Independence sought to terminate that relationship for each American colony. While the Declaration was worked out in a General Congress with representatives from each of the colonies, it did not create a general government nor a formal confederation among the newly declared States. The Declaration of Independence begins with a statement regarding the authority of governments to exist and claims that this authority is founded on God's approval and on the consent of the governed.  The authors continue to cite truisms about the nature of man and society, but offer not the slightest legal basis for any of their declarations, claiming rather that their statements are self-evident. The majority of the document consists of a listing of claims that the King had abused the colonists by heavy handed ways. All this builds to the final paragraph where the declaration for independence is actually made. This culminating paragraph sets out the nature of these newly declared political claims, to wit:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

The Declaration of Independence does not portend to create a single nation. If it did, its name should be "The State of New Britain", or "The State of America", or "The State of The New World", or any other name representing a single entity. But the proper name of our political arrangement is in the plural, not the singular. Also, the Declaration of Independence did not create a name for this alliance of American states. That came two years later with the Articles of Confederation. At the time of the Declaration, these American states were united in purpose and action to be free and independent of British rule first perhaps, but free and independent of each other as well.

By referring to Great Britain as a state, this paragraph tells us that the Founding Fathers understood a state to have the same status as any nation on the world scene. It is common to refer to Great Britain as a nation or a country, but most Americans are surprised to notice that Great Britain is a state. The first legal document in American history uses precisely that language.

Under international law as well as American law, the words "state" and "nation" mean exactly the same thing. Each State in our Union has its own constitution, its own land over which it exercises jurisdiction, its own citizens, its own legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, police powers, prison system, and military (both the state's militia and the National Guard are under the control of the governor of the State as commander-in-chief). At the inception, each of the States issued its own money and had tariff laws which operated on the importation of goods from each of the other states as well as from states outside of American society. Of course, if we stop to think about it, we hear from time to time on the news today about the "State of Israel" as well as the periodic gathering of the representatives of the "G-8 states" or the "G-8 summit". These G-8 states are not Tennessee, New York, California, or other States of the Union or subdivision of some larger entity. These states are the industrial and economic powerhouses of the world France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, etc. These nations are identified at the United Nations as "member states". Thus, it is perfectly within the proper usage of the terms "state" and "nation" to conclude that the Declaration of Independence created not one, but thirteen brand new nations or countries. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in the case of The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1; 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831) that "The terms "state" and "nation" are used in the law of nations, as well as in common parlance, as importing the same thing;..." Thus, the state of Delaware is a nation. The state of Pennsylvania is a nation. The state of New Jersey is a nation. The state of Georgia is a nation. The state of Connecticut is a nation, and so on. Each of the newly declared American States is a nation that is separate, distinct, and foreign to each of the others as well as all other nations of the world. The claim to a change in status of being equal to the State of Great Britain, as opposed to being a dominion or canton of the British realm, was precisely what led to the American Revolution and it is the character which all States of the Union possess.

It is popular in some quarters today to think that Congress has the authority to create states. But that notion is not true to our history and law. Notice the following explanation in Chisholm. Ex'r v. Georgia, (Feb. 1794), from the U.S. Supreme Court:

 

"A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people... A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless in the special instances where the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself... p. 448

"The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and may perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this- "do the people of the United States form a NATION?..

"By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION." [Italics & caps original.] Chisholm. Ex'r v.  Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794).

Here the U.S. Supreme Court informs us that our political arrangement of cooperative federalism does not make a nation, but rather a society. While the people of the several states share many things in common, each State retains its national character and political independence. Just a few years later the U.S. Supreme Court further stated in a landmark case dealing with the authority of a State to levy a tax on the operation of the United States within the State of Maryland, "No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass." M'Culloch v. The State of Maryland et al, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316; 4 L.Ed 579 (1819). How times have changed. As we look around today, it appears that many political dreamers have been wild enough to attempt exactly what the Supreme Court justices in 1819 never dreamed could be possible. But it is historically and politically incorrect, as well as contrary to the determination of the U.S. Supreme Court, to refer to American society as a nation or a country.  It is proper to refer to the American political alliance as a society.

 

 

The Alliance That Made

The United States of America

At the Declaration of Independence and the call to arms that immediately followed, it was widely believed that the colonists could not prevail against the British military power unless patriots throughout the states were to work in concert with each other. To bring about such cooperation, the Articles of Confederation were proposed in 1778, two years after the Declaration of Independence was made. The loose association that characterized the general cooperation among the people of the states began to change as the newly declared nations began to ratify the Articles of Confederation. Article I is the first instance where the American confederation was formalized with a title which named this alliance "The United States of America"; Article II preserves the sovereignty and independence of each State, to wit:

"Article I. The style of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'

"Article II. Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Articles of Confederation-1778.

Through the Articles of Confederation the Founding Fathers recognized that each State was sovereign and independent of each other and that, while the Declaration of Independence expressed the collective will of the people of the American States united in purpose and action, that document did not attempt to create a single, unified government with one jurisdiction — it merely recognized the several governments that were already in existence. And it did not create a federal government.

Here can be seen that "The United States of America" is an alliance of nations that are separate, distinct, independent, and foreign to each other, and do not make "one nation under God" as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance which was written many years later. The United States of America is an alliance of nations whose people have banded together in a political pact for a common (not "national") purpose. The United States of America is a confederation of sovereign States, not a consolidation of subject states into a single nation.

This relationship is not just an interesting fact of history, it is current law, see 28 U.S. Code § 297 - Assignment of judges to courts of the freely associated compact states, to wit:

(a) The Chief Justice or the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may assign any circuit, district, magistrate, or territorial judge of a court of the Ninth Circuit, with the consent of the judge so assigned, to serve temporarily as a judge of any duly constituted court of the freely associated compact states whenever an official duly authorized by the laws of the respective compact state requests such assignment and such assignment is necessary for the proper dispatch of the business of the respective court.

(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) of all necessary travel expenses, including transportation, and of subsistence, or of a reasonable per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence. The judge shall report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts any amount received pursuant to this subsection.

While the Articles of Confederation were proposed in 1778, they were not ratified by all thirteen States until 1781, mainly because of issues involving the status of western lands. Upon ratification, Congress was authorized to survey the western territory by the Land Act of 1785. The Ordinance of 1787 provided for the government of the Northwest Territory, the first territorial government created by the United States. Because this land was not within any State, it was under the collective control of all the States of the Union through Congress. This model has been used by Congress, and later the federal government, throughout American history for establishing territorial governments in any of the territories belonging to America.  A complete list of territories can be found in the Domestic Mail Manual. The most notable among these are American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Just as the Northwest Territory did not have its own sovereignty, so these territories do not have sovereignty.

Why "Congress"?

Why did the Founding Fathers choose the name "Congress" as the name of the political body where the representatives from the several states would meet to work out their differences? They could have called their meetings a Parliament, an Assembly, a Forum, a Convention, the United States Legislature, or possibly something else. But why did they select the name "Congress" as the name for their meeting place? Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1951, page 373 defines "Congress" as:

"CONGRESS. In International Law. An assembly of envoys, commissioners, deputies, etc., from different sovereignties who meet to concert measures for their common good, or to adjust their mutual concerns.

"In American Law. The legislative assembly of the United States, composed of the senate and house of representatives (q.v.). U.S. Const. art. 1, section 1."

Congress, the legislative body of the United States, is a place where representatives from different sovereignties (i.e., the sovereign States of the Union) meet to work out problems for their common good. Thus, the very word "Congress" has embodied within it the concept that the sovereignty of any one State is separate, distinct, and foreign to the sovereignty and jurisdiction of every other State in the Union. However, while the Articles of Confederation recognized a Congress, the solutions proposed and agreed to there were not binding on the States, and each State was left to decide to what extent it would comply with the solutions worked out in Congress. Although historians love to refer to this arrangement as a weak central government or weak national government without the executive and judicial branches of government, in reality, there was no central or national government that applied to the states collectively. Congress was only a forum where issues could be discussed and solutions proposed, and it was up to the States to accept, reject, or modify the solutions as each, in its sovereign wisdom, saw fit. The Articles of Confederation served to keep the States bound together in Union but, they did not make the States subservient to Congress.

The United States — a Federal Government

On September 17, 1787, eleven years after the Declaration of Independence and nine years after the Articles of Confederation were first proposed, the Constitution for the United States of America was proposed and subsequently sent to the States of the Union for ratification. This document, the U.S. Constitution, upon ratification of nine States (accomplished by the vote of New Hampshire on June 21, 1788) created the United States government as a federal government with limited, enumerated authority. Without this document there would be no United States government as we have it today.

Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. government were operational within a state just because nine States in the Union had ratified the document. Only upon its own ratification of this document did the State cede the limited authority to the United States government for this federal government to have even limited authority within that state. Neither were the non-ratifying States permitted to participate in any federal functions without this ratification. For example, neither North Carolina nor Rhode Island participated in the first presidential election of 1789 because neither State had ratified the U.S. Constitution. North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island ratified on May 29, 1790. Without this ratification, the new United States government did not exist for these States even though they were both members of the American Union pursuant to the Articles of Confederation.

The U.S. Constitution did not create a central government nor a national government over these thirteen nations. The purpose of this new government was "to form a more perfect union," not a nation. The words "nation" and "national" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The word "nations" (plural) is used twice (article I, section 8, clauses 3 and 10), but in both instances it is used in reference to geopolitical powers outside of American society. The U.S. Constitution could not bring into existence a national government because there were already thirteen sovereign nations in the American "league of friendship.” Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, sets out the distinction between a national government and a federal government at page 1176, to wit:

"NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. The government of a whole nation, as distinguished from that of a local or territorial division of the nation, and also as distinguished from that of a league or confederation.

"A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the "social compact," and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government, by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact."

Did you catch that? Black's Law Dictionary says that the government formed by a community of states is not a "national government"! How often we say it wrong! Rather than calling this new government a general government, central government, or national government (the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific name, title, or style for the new federal government), it would be more accurate to refer to the federal government as a coordinating government. The role of the federal government is to coordinate various responsibilities among the States of the Union. To this extent and for this purpose only, the states delegated some of their authority to the new government (which is called the United States government by common convention). However, they specifically withheld authority from the United States government for those things not specifically delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution and preserved that relationship in the 10th Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution calls for the United States government to provide for a common defense (not a national defense), a common coin (not a national coin), regulation of interstate commerce, to establish post offices and post roads throughout the states, and other things stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It was given a territory (the District of Columbia) that was separate from the States of the Union because it was to be foreign to the sovereignty of any state and not under the jurisdiction of any single state. The United States government is to be the agent of the people of the States and is not the same entity as "The United States of America" which is the alliance of American States. The United States government was formed to serve the community of American States.

The People v. Naglee (Dec. 1850) California Supreme Court:

"In determining the boundaries of apparently conflicting powers between the states and the general government, the proper question is, not so much what has been, in terms, reserved to the states, as what has been, expressly or by necessary implication, granted by the people to the national government; for each state possesses all the powers of an independent and sovereign nation, except so far as they have been ceded away by the constitution.       The federal government is but the creature of the people of the states, and, like an agent appointed for definite and specific purposes, must show an express or necessarily implied authority in the charter of its appointment to give validity to its acts." People ex rel. Attry. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 234 (1850).

The nature of the federal government has not changed as American history marches forward. The U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government is still a government of limited, enumerated authority.

Clarification of the definition of “state”

One of the most fruitful and conclusive methods for establishing the meaning of the term “State” in the IRC is to trace the history of changes to the United States Codes, which occurred when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union. It is instructive to illustrate these changes as they occurred in the IRC definitions of “State” found in the 1^st code amendment effective on January 3, 1959, when Alaska was admitted into the Union:

IRC 7701 (a) (10) Amended 1954 Code Sec. 7701 (a) (10) by striking out “Territories”, and by substituting “Territory of Hawaii”.

The 2^nd Code amendment became effective on August 21, 1959, when Hawaii was admitted to the Union:

IRC 7701 (a) (10) Amended 1954 Code Sec. 7701 (a) (10) by striking out “the Territory of Hawaii and” immediately after the word “include”.

Applying these code changes in reverse order, we can reconstruct the IRC definitions of “State” as follows:

IRC 1954:

Alaska is a U.S. Territory

Hawaii is a U.S. Territory

7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

Alaska joins the Union. Strikeout “Territories” and substitute “Territory of Hawaii”:

Revision 1:

Alaska is a State of the Union

Hawaii is a U.S. Territory

7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territory of Hawaii and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

Hawaii joins the Union. Strikeout “the Territory of Hawaii and” immediately after the word “include”:

Revision 2

Alaska is a State of the Union

Hawaii is a State of the Union

7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

We can now properly and reasonably conclude that the term “State” now means only the District of Columbia (and no other), because the former Territories of Alaska and Hawaii have been admitted into the Union, Puerto Rico has been granted the status of a Commonwealth, and the Philippine Islands have been granted their independence.

Notice carefully how Alaska and Hawaii only fit these definitions of “State” before they joined the Union. It is most revealing that these Territories became States when they were admitted to the Union and yet the United States Codes had to be changed because of Alaska and Hawaii were defined in those Codes as “States” before the mission to the Union, but not afterword. This apparent anomaly is perfectly clear, once the legal and deliberately misleading definitions of “State” is understood.

The government may raise an argument about “includes” using 26 USC 7621, which established their authority to operate outside of Washington DC.

26 USC 7621 (b): Boundaries. For the purpose mentioned in subsection (a), the President may subdivide any State or the District of Columbia, or may unite into one district 2 or more States.

A very serious constitutional issue is involved here: there is an absolute constitutional prohibition against subdividing or joining any of the 50 states, or any part thereof, without the consent of Congress and of the legislatures of the states affected. This prohibition is very much like the one against direct taxes within the 50 states without apportionment:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress.

Congress does not have unrestricted, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over any of the 50 states. It is bound by the chains of the Constitution. This point is very important! As in the up apportionment rule for direct taxes and the uniformity rule for indirect taxes, Congress cannot join or divide any of the 50 states without the explicit approval of the legislatures of the state(s) involved. This means that Congress cannot unilaterally delegate such a power to the President. Congress cannot lawfully exercise (nor delegate) a power which is simply does not have.

How, then, is it possible for section 7621 (b) of the IRC to give this power to the President? The answer is very simple: the territorial scope of the Internal Revenue Code is the federal zone. The IRC only applies to the land that is internal to that zone. Indeed, the leading legal encyclopedia leaves no doubt that the terms “municipal law” and “internal law” are equivalent:

… [P]ostive law is classified as international law, the law which governs the interrelationships of sovereign states, and municipal law, which is, when used in contradiction to international law, the branch of the law which governs the internal affairs of a sovereign state. 52A C.J.S. 741, 742 (“Law”).

If the territorial scope of the IRC where the 50 states of the Union, then section 7621 (b) would, all by itself, render the entire statute unconstitutional for violating clause 4:3:1 of the Constitution. Numerous other constitutional violations would also occur if the territorial scope of the IRC were the 50 states. A clear and unambiguous definition of “State” must be known before status and jurisdiction can be decided with certainty.

This fact is known to the IRS, as evidence on Form 2039 Summons, as discussed above. Is the IRS telling us that the only states over which it has jurisdictions are Guam, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc.? Well, why not write and find out?

Don’t expect an answer, if you do it will be a response but not an answer. You would think the Senators and or one of the Congresspersons would prod the IRS for a reply, but don’t hold your breath.

Think about that, isn’t that strange? It would be so simple for the service to reply, “of course [Name of State] is one of the United States referred to in the code” if that were, indeed, the case. What can one conclude from the government’s refusal to deal with the simple question except that the government cannot admit the truth about United States/state citizenship.

2 final definitions will prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the IRC can also define the terms “State” and “United States” to mean the 50 states as well as the other federal States when it needs to and can do lawfully.

IRC 4612 (a) (4) (A) In General. The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

Notice that the definition uses the term “means”. Why is this definition so clear, in stark contrast to other IRC definitions of the “United States”? Author Ralph Whittington provides the simple, if not obvious, answer:

The preceding is a true Import Tax, as allowed by the Constitution; it contains all the indicia of being uniform, and therefore passes the constitutionality test and can operate within the 50 sovereign states. The language of the revenue act is simple, specific and definitive, and it would be impossible to attach the “Void for Vagueness Doctrine” to it. The Omnibus, page 83.

 

more to come: